Novel forms of governance with high levels of civic self-reliance
Ubels, Hiska
DOI:
10.33612/diss.111587565
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Ubels, H. (2020). Novel forms of governance with high levels of civic self-reliance. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.111587565
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
120
Rijksoverheid (2015). Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning (WMO) 2015. Retrieved on March 26, 2015 from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/zorg-en-ondersteuning-thuis/wmo-
2015?utm_campaign=sea-t-gezondheid_en_zorg-a-zorg_en_ondersteuning_thuis_wmo_2015&utm_term=%2Bwmo%20%2B2015&gclid=CP7q_NLtxc QCFY_MtAodc2cANg. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid
Ruth, M. and Franklin, R.S. (2014). Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied Geography, 49, 18-23.
Salemink, K., Strijker, D. and Bosworth, G. (2016). The community reclaims control? Learning experiences from rural broadband initiatives in the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis, 57 (S1), 555-575. Shucksmith, M. (2000). Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (2), 208-218.
Skerratt, S. and Steiner, A. (2013). Working with communities-of-place: complexities of empowerment. Local Economy, 28 (3), 320-338.
Skerratt, S. (2016). The power of rhetoric in re-shaping health and social care: implications for the under-served. Sociologia Politiche Sociali, 19 (3), 9-28.
Ubels, H., Bock, B.B., Haartsen, T. (2019). An evolutionary perspective on experimental local governance arrangements with local governments and residents in Dutch rural areas of depopulation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 0 (00), 1–19.
Vernon, D.R., Agnitsch, K.A., Mullick, O.R. (2005). Making Sense of Voluntary Participation: A Theoretical Synthesis. Rural Sociology, 70 (3), 287–313.
Weisinger, J.Y., Salipante, P.F. (2005). A Grounded Theory for Building Ethnically Bridging Social Capital in Voluntary Organizations. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34 (1), 29-55.
5.
Non-engagement of mid-aged and elderly residents in rural civic
initiatives
AbstractIn the context of public budget cuts and rural areas facing depopulation and aging, local governments increasingly encourage citizen engagement in addressing local liveability issues. This paper examines the non-engagement of aging residents (45+ years old) in civic initiatives that intend to improve the liveability of their community. We focus on residents of depopulating rural areas in the North-Netherlands but make a comparison with not depopulating rural and urban areas. Using logistic statistical analyses, we found that the majority of the aging residents did not engage in the past two years, and one-third of this group had no intention to do so in the future. In all areas, the main reasons for non-engagement were that residents had other priorities, felt not capable to engage or felt that the responsibility for local liveability belonged to the local government. Furthermore, it appeared that non-engagement was predominantly explained by the unwillingness to engage, rather than specific motivations or lacking abilities.
5.1 Introduction
Like elsewhere in Europe, the more peripheral rural areas of the Netherlands are currently facing depopulation and aging (Cloet, 2003; Haartsen and Venhorst, 2010; Hospers and Reverda, 2012; Reher, 2007). This development goes along with a variety of challenges which put pressure on the liveability (‘Leefbaarheid’ in Dutch) of the communities within these areas, such as the deterioration and vacancy of houses and the closure of schools, shops, public transport facilities and social and health care services (Christiaanse and Haartsen, 2017; Hospers and Reverda, 2012; Korsten and Goedvolk, 2008; Bock, 2019). Since local governments are dealing with austerity measures and cuts in public funding they search for alternative ways how to respond to such challenges. In this context in Dutch local policy neo-liberalist ideas have gained ground arenas about citizens being able to provide public goods and to meet community needs more effectively and efficiently than governments are able to. A similar development is witnessed in other European countries (Glenna et al. 2014). The encouragement of citizen engagement in addressing such issues has led to multiple governance experiments in Dutch municipalities with citizens taking
121 Rijksoverheid (2015). Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning (WMO) 2015. Retrieved on March 26,
2015 from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/zorg-en-ondersteuning-thuis/wmo-
2015?utm_campaign=sea-t-gezondheid_en_zorg-a-zorg_en_ondersteuning_thuis_wmo_2015&utm_term=%2Bwmo%20%2B2015&gclid=CP7q_NLtxc QCFY_MtAodc2cANg. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid
Ruth, M. and Franklin, R.S. (2014). Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied Geography, 49, 18-23.
Salemink, K., Strijker, D. and Bosworth, G. (2016). The community reclaims control? Learning experiences from rural broadband initiatives in the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis, 57 (S1), 555-575. Shucksmith, M. (2000). Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (2), 208-218.
Skerratt, S. and Steiner, A. (2013). Working with communities-of-place: complexities of empowerment. Local Economy, 28 (3), 320-338.
Skerratt, S. (2016). The power of rhetoric in re-shaping health and social care: implications for the under-served. Sociologia Politiche Sociali, 19 (3), 9-28.
Ubels, H., Bock, B.B., Haartsen, T. (2019). An evolutionary perspective on experimental local governance arrangements with local governments and residents in Dutch rural areas of depopulation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 0 (00), 1–19.
Vernon, D.R., Agnitsch, K.A., Mullick, O.R. (2005). Making Sense of Voluntary Participation: A Theoretical Synthesis. Rural Sociology, 70 (3), 287–313.
Weisinger, J.Y., Salipante, P.F. (2005). A Grounded Theory for Building Ethnically Bridging Social Capital in Voluntary Organizations. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34 (1), 29-55.
5.
Non-engagement of mid-aged and elderly residents in rural civic
initiatives
AbstractIn the context of public budget cuts and rural areas facing depopulation and aging, local governments increasingly encourage citizen engagement in addressing local liveability issues. This paper examines the non-engagement of aging residents (45+ years old) in civic initiatives that intend to improve the liveability of their community. We focus on residents of depopulating rural areas in the North-Netherlands but make a comparison with not depopulating rural and urban areas. Using logistic statistical analyses, we found that the majority of the aging residents did not engage in the past two years, and one-third of this group had no intention to do so in the future. In all areas, the main reasons for non-engagement were that residents had other priorities, felt not capable to engage or felt that the responsibility for local liveability belonged to the local government. Furthermore, it appeared that non-engagement was predominantly explained by the unwillingness to engage, rather than specific motivations or lacking abilities.
5.1 Introduction
Like elsewhere in Europe, the more peripheral rural areas of the Netherlands are currently facing depopulation and aging (Cloet, 2003; Haartsen and Venhorst, 2010; Hospers and Reverda, 2012; Reher, 2007). This development goes along with a variety of challenges which put pressure on the liveability (‘Leefbaarheid’ in Dutch) of the communities within these areas, such as the deterioration and vacancy of houses and the closure of schools, shops, public transport facilities and social and health care services (Christiaanse and Haartsen, 2017; Hospers and Reverda, 2012; Korsten and Goedvolk, 2008; Bock, 2019). Since local governments are dealing with austerity measures and cuts in public funding they search for alternative ways how to respond to such challenges. In this context in Dutch local policy neo-liberalist ideas have gained ground arenas about citizens being able to provide public goods and to meet community needs more effectively and efficiently than governments are able to. A similar development is witnessed in other European countries (Glenna et al. 2014). The encouragement of citizen engagement in addressing such issues has led to multiple governance experiments in Dutch municipalities with citizens taking
122
over former government responsibilities in the public domain (Van Dam et al. 2015; Edelenbos et al. 2017). Citizens are expected to have the knowledge and the capacity to find local solutions, to strengthen social cohesion through new collaborations and to increase their self-organizing abilities (Gieling and Haartsen 2017; De Haan et al. 2017). Particularly in depopulating rural areas the rise of such citizen engagement is perceived as a positive development (Bock, 2019).
Recently, various scholars have studied different aspects of novel forms of citizen action. For example, Edelenbos et al. (2017; 2018) investigated experimental collaborations between citizens and formal authorities from an evolutionary perspective; Munoz et al. (2014) looked into the capacities of elderly citizens realizing social enterprises providing social and health care, and Connelly (2011) and Healey (2015) reflected on the democratic potential and legitimacy of novel forms of governance with citizens in the lead. Although such novel governance forms are on the rise, studies stress that not all citizens are committed to engaging in community-related initiatives. They point at different reasons, among which differences in power and capacities to act (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013). Moreover, it is emphasized that citizens can have many good reasons not to engage; they may have other priorities, consider engagement not in their interest or do not see the need for action at all (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Crona and Bodin, 2006; Shortall, 2008; Gilchrist, 2009; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013).
Studies also indicate that social groups may differ in their inclination to engage (Munoz et al., 2014: Ubels et al., 2019a). So far, we know little about reasons why residents of depopulating rural areas may not engage in civic initiatives that aim to improve the liveability of their communities. Due to the out-migration of younger people and the relatively strong aging process in depopulating rural areas (Hospers and Reverda, 2012), the readiness to engage of elderly residents is particularly interesting –after all the initiation of civic engagement will increasingly depend on this group because they are in the majority and have more time available due to their stage in life (Munoz et al., 2014: Ruth and Franklin, 2014). In this study, we want to obtain more insight into the potential non-engagement of mid-aged and elderly residents (45+ years old) within these areas in liveability initiatives. It is possible that their motives are similar to those revealed in earlier research among rural citizens (see research referred to above). There are also good reasons to expect that non-engagement in depopulating rural areas, instead, has other
explanations than elsewhere. On the one hand, there may be higher motivation to engage, because of the deteriorating level of services and facilities. On the other hand, engagement may also be less because of the higher level of socio-economic vulnerability and marginalization (Bock, 2019). On the basis of earlier research (see above) it makes sense to distinguish between specific motivations not to engage and the inability to do so. In this paper, we aim to look into the motives and abilities that explain non-engagement in civic initiatives that specifically intend to contribute to local liveability and to clarify the relation between such motives and abilities. In our approach, we also include the possibility that residents do not wish to engage, without any particular reason. Our central question is: how can we explain the non-engagement of aging residents in local civic initiatives that intend to improve the liveability of their communities? In doing so, we focus on depopulating rural areas. In order to understand if perceived urgency plays a role in non-engagement, we also include residents living in neighboring rural and urban areas without population decline. The study is designed as follows. First, we explore to what extent residents recently did or did not engage in civic initiatives (see section 4.1). We then focus on those who have not engaged recently and have no intention to do so in the future, in order to understand what explains their attitude (see section 4.2). Our analysis is based on data from surveys among a citizen panel of residents of the Dutch province of Fryslân.
This paper is structured as follows. We start with a literature review of earlier studies into civic action and the explanations these provide for non-engagement. We then present this study’s conceptual framework. Section 3 discusses the methodology of data collection and data analysis. Section 4 describes the results of the analyses. The conclusions are presented in section 5. 5.2 Non-engagement of residents in civic initiatives in rural depopulating areas
Recent studies approach the non-engagement of citizens in community development from different angles. Many of these studies emphasize the inequality of capacities within and between communities. This may be related to the scarcity of human capital because of the size or composition of the population and the limited pools of volunteers with sufficient time, skills, knowledge, and interests (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Hall, 2011; Meijer and Syssner, 2017). Lack of capacities may also be related to low levels of civic empowerment (Shucksmith, 2002). 123 over former government responsibilities in the public domain (Van Dam et al. 2015; Edelenbos
et al. 2017). Citizens are expected to have the knowledge and the capacity to find local solutions, to strengthen social cohesion through new collaborations and to increase their self-organizing abilities (Gieling and Haartsen 2017; De Haan et al. 2017). Particularly in depopulating rural areas the rise of such citizen engagement is perceived as a positive development (Bock, 2019).
Recently, various scholars have studied different aspects of novel forms of citizen action. For example, Edelenbos et al. (2017; 2018) investigated experimental collaborations between citizens and formal authorities from an evolutionary perspective; Munoz et al. (2014) looked into the capacities of elderly citizens realizing social enterprises providing social and health care, and Connelly (2011) and Healey (2015) reflected on the democratic potential and legitimacy of novel forms of governance with citizens in the lead. Although such novel governance forms are on the rise, studies stress that not all citizens are committed to engaging in community-related initiatives. They point at different reasons, among which differences in power and capacities to act (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013). Moreover, it is emphasized that citizens can have many good reasons not to engage; they may have other priorities, consider engagement not in their interest or do not see the need for action at all (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Crona and Bodin, 2006; Shortall, 2008; Gilchrist, 2009; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013).
Studies also indicate that social groups may differ in their inclination to engage (Munoz et al., 2014: Ubels et al., 2019a). So far, we know little about reasons why residents of depopulating rural areas may not engage in civic initiatives that aim to improve the liveability of their communities. Due to the out-migration of younger people and the relatively strong aging process in depopulating rural areas (Hospers and Reverda, 2012), the readiness to engage of elderly residents is particularly interesting –after all the initiation of civic engagement will increasingly depend on this group because they are in the majority and have more time available due to their stage in life (Munoz et al., 2014: Ruth and Franklin, 2014). In this study, we want to obtain more insight into the potential non-engagement of mid-aged and elderly residents (45+ years old) within these areas in liveability initiatives. It is possible that their motives are similar to those revealed in earlier research among rural citizens (see research referred to above). There are also good reasons to expect that non-engagement in depopulating rural areas, instead, has other
explanations than elsewhere. On the one hand, there may be higher motivation to engage, because of the deteriorating level of services and facilities. On the other hand, engagement may also be less because of the higher level of socio-economic vulnerability and marginalization (Bock, 2019). On the basis of earlier research (see above) it makes sense to distinguish between specific motivations not to engage and the inability to do so. In this paper, we aim to look into the motives and abilities that explain non-engagement in civic initiatives that specifically intend to contribute to local liveability and to clarify the relation between such motives and abilities. In our approach, we also include the possibility that residents do not wish to engage, without any particular reason. Our central question is: how can we explain the non-engagement of aging residents in local civic initiatives that intend to improve the liveability of their communities? In doing so, we focus on depopulating rural areas. In order to understand if perceived urgency plays a role in non-engagement, we also include residents living in neighboring rural and urban areas without population decline. The study is designed as follows. First, we explore to what extent residents recently did or did not engage in civic initiatives (see section 4.1). We then focus on those who have not engaged recently and have no intention to do so in the future, in order to understand what explains their attitude (see section 4.2). Our analysis is based on data from surveys among a citizen panel of residents of the Dutch province of Fryslân.
This paper is structured as follows. We start with a literature review of earlier studies into civic action and the explanations these provide for non-engagement. We then present this study’s conceptual framework. Section 3 discusses the methodology of data collection and data analysis. Section 4 describes the results of the analyses. The conclusions are presented in section 5. 5.2 Non-engagement of residents in civic initiatives in rural depopulating areas
Recent studies approach the non-engagement of citizens in community development from different angles. Many of these studies emphasize the inequality of capacities within and between communities. This may be related to the scarcity of human capital because of the size or composition of the population and the limited pools of volunteers with sufficient time, skills, knowledge, and interests (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Hall, 2011; Meijer and Syssner, 2017). Lack of capacities may also be related to low levels of civic empowerment (Shucksmith, 2002).
122
over former government responsibilities in the public domain (Van Dam et al. 2015; Edelenbos et al. 2017). Citizens are expected to have the knowledge and the capacity to find local solutions, to strengthen social cohesion through new collaborations and to increase their self-organizing abilities (Gieling and Haartsen 2017; De Haan et al. 2017). Particularly in depopulating rural areas the rise of such citizen engagement is perceived as a positive development (Bock, 2019).
Recently, various scholars have studied different aspects of novel forms of citizen action. For example, Edelenbos et al. (2017; 2018) investigated experimental collaborations between citizens and formal authorities from an evolutionary perspective; Munoz et al. (2014) looked into the capacities of elderly citizens realizing social enterprises providing social and health care, and Connelly (2011) and Healey (2015) reflected on the democratic potential and legitimacy of novel forms of governance with citizens in the lead. Although such novel governance forms are on the rise, studies stress that not all citizens are committed to engaging in community-related initiatives. They point at different reasons, among which differences in power and capacities to act (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013). Moreover, it is emphasized that citizens can have many good reasons not to engage; they may have other priorities, consider engagement not in their interest or do not see the need for action at all (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Crona and Bodin, 2006; Shortall, 2008; Gilchrist, 2009; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013).
Studies also indicate that social groups may differ in their inclination to engage (Munoz et al., 2014: Ubels et al., 2019a). So far, we know little about reasons why residents of depopulating rural areas may not engage in civic initiatives that aim to improve the liveability of their communities. Due to the out-migration of younger people and the relatively strong aging process in depopulating rural areas (Hospers and Reverda, 2012), the readiness to engage of elderly residents is particularly interesting –after all the initiation of civic engagement will increasingly depend on this group because they are in the majority and have more time available due to their stage in life (Munoz et al., 2014: Ruth and Franklin, 2014). In this study, we want to obtain more insight into the potential non-engagement of mid-aged and elderly residents (45+ years old) within these areas in liveability initiatives. It is possible that their motives are similar to those revealed in earlier research among rural citizens (see research referred to above). There are also good reasons to expect that non-engagement in depopulating rural areas, instead, has other
explanations than elsewhere. On the one hand, there may be higher motivation to engage, because of the deteriorating level of services and facilities. On the other hand, engagement may also be less because of the higher level of socio-economic vulnerability and marginalization (Bock, 2019). On the basis of earlier research (see above) it makes sense to distinguish between specific motivations not to engage and the inability to do so. In this paper, we aim to look into the motives and abilities that explain non-engagement in civic initiatives that specifically intend to contribute to local liveability and to clarify the relation between such motives and abilities. In our approach, we also include the possibility that residents do not wish to engage, without any particular reason. Our central question is: how can we explain the non-engagement of aging residents in local civic initiatives that intend to improve the liveability of their communities? In doing so, we focus on depopulating rural areas. In order to understand if perceived urgency plays a role in non-engagement, we also include residents living in neighboring rural and urban areas without population decline. The study is designed as follows. First, we explore to what extent residents recently did or did not engage in civic initiatives (see section 4.1). We then focus on those who have not engaged recently and have no intention to do so in the future, in order to understand what explains their attitude (see section 4.2). Our analysis is based on data from surveys among a citizen panel of residents of the Dutch province of Fryslân.
This paper is structured as follows. We start with a literature review of earlier studies into civic action and the explanations these provide for non-engagement. We then present this study’s conceptual framework. Section 3 discusses the methodology of data collection and data analysis. Section 4 describes the results of the analyses. The conclusions are presented in section 5. 5.2 Non-engagement of residents in civic initiatives in rural depopulating areas
Recent studies approach the non-engagement of citizens in community development from different angles. Many of these studies emphasize the inequality of capacities within and between communities. This may be related to the scarcity of human capital because of the size or composition of the population and the limited pools of volunteers with sufficient time, skills, knowledge, and interests (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Hall, 2011; Meijer and Syssner, 2017). Lack of capacities may also be related to low levels of civic empowerment (Shucksmith, 2002). 123 over former government responsibilities in the public domain (Van Dam et al. 2015; Edelenbos
et al. 2017). Citizens are expected to have the knowledge and the capacity to find local solutions, to strengthen social cohesion through new collaborations and to increase their self-organizing abilities (Gieling and Haartsen 2017; De Haan et al. 2017). Particularly in depopulating rural areas the rise of such citizen engagement is perceived as a positive development (Bock, 2019).
Recently, various scholars have studied different aspects of novel forms of citizen action. For example, Edelenbos et al. (2017; 2018) investigated experimental collaborations between citizens and formal authorities from an evolutionary perspective; Munoz et al. (2014) looked into the capacities of elderly citizens realizing social enterprises providing social and health care, and Connelly (2011) and Healey (2015) reflected on the democratic potential and legitimacy of novel forms of governance with citizens in the lead. Although such novel governance forms are on the rise, studies stress that not all citizens are committed to engaging in community-related initiatives. They point at different reasons, among which differences in power and capacities to act (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013). Moreover, it is emphasized that citizens can have many good reasons not to engage; they may have other priorities, consider engagement not in their interest or do not see the need for action at all (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Crona and Bodin, 2006; Shortall, 2008; Gilchrist, 2009; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013).
Studies also indicate that social groups may differ in their inclination to engage (Munoz et al., 2014: Ubels et al., 2019a). So far, we know little about reasons why residents of depopulating rural areas may not engage in civic initiatives that aim to improve the liveability of their communities. Due to the out-migration of younger people and the relatively strong aging process in depopulating rural areas (Hospers and Reverda, 2012), the readiness to engage of elderly residents is particularly interesting –after all the initiation of civic engagement will increasingly depend on this group because they are in the majority and have more time available due to their stage in life (Munoz et al., 2014: Ruth and Franklin, 2014). In this study, we want to obtain more insight into the potential non-engagement of mid-aged and elderly residents (45+ years old) within these areas in liveability initiatives. It is possible that their motives are similar to those revealed in earlier research among rural citizens (see research referred to above). There are also good reasons to expect that non-engagement in depopulating rural areas, instead, has other
explanations than elsewhere. On the one hand, there may be higher motivation to engage, because of the deteriorating level of services and facilities. On the other hand, engagement may also be less because of the higher level of socio-economic vulnerability and marginalization (Bock, 2019). On the basis of earlier research (see above) it makes sense to distinguish between specific motivations not to engage and the inability to do so. In this paper, we aim to look into the motives and abilities that explain non-engagement in civic initiatives that specifically intend to contribute to local liveability and to clarify the relation between such motives and abilities. In our approach, we also include the possibility that residents do not wish to engage, without any particular reason. Our central question is: how can we explain the non-engagement of aging residents in local civic initiatives that intend to improve the liveability of their communities? In doing so, we focus on depopulating rural areas. In order to understand if perceived urgency plays a role in non-engagement, we also include residents living in neighboring rural and urban areas without population decline. The study is designed as follows. First, we explore to what extent residents recently did or did not engage in civic initiatives (see section 4.1). We then focus on those who have not engaged recently and have no intention to do so in the future, in order to understand what explains their attitude (see section 4.2). Our analysis is based on data from surveys among a citizen panel of residents of the Dutch province of Fryslân.
This paper is structured as follows. We start with a literature review of earlier studies into civic action and the explanations these provide for non-engagement. We then present this study’s conceptual framework. Section 3 discusses the methodology of data collection and data analysis. Section 4 describes the results of the analyses. The conclusions are presented in section 5. 5.2 Non-engagement of residents in civic initiatives in rural depopulating areas
Recent studies approach the non-engagement of citizens in community development from different angles. Many of these studies emphasize the inequality of capacities within and between communities. This may be related to the scarcity of human capital because of the size or composition of the population and the limited pools of volunteers with sufficient time, skills, knowledge, and interests (Shucksmith, 2002; Skerrat and Hall, 2011; Meijer and Syssner, 2017). Lack of capacities may also be related to low levels of civic empowerment (Shucksmith, 2002).
124
Moreover, studies point out that it may be particularly difficult to promote capacity building because of the complicated relations and patterns of affiliations among subgroups within communities which moreover change over time (Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Fischer and McKee, 2017).
There are also studies which focus at the individual level and, hence, seek to explain why some residents are more prone to engage than others. Among those focusing on the individual level, there are studies which stress the importance of the capacity to engage that residents may or may not have (Shucksmith, 2002; Shortall, 2008; Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Munoz et al., 2014). Others refer to differences in aspirations, ideas, and interests about what is needed and how it should be realized, as well as individual residents’ confidence in their ability to make a difference through their engagement (Crona and Bodin, 2006; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013).
This study departs from an individual angle as well, focusing on the differences between residents and their reasons for non-engagement in civic initiatives that aim to contribute to local liveability. In doing so, we distinguish between specific motivations that residents may have for not engaging and the lacking ability to do so. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to look into the influence of community characteristics on non-engagement, we do try to understand if living in a context of rural depopulation matters for residents reasoning. But before presenting more details about our study design, we discuss how motivations and abilities may play a role in non-engagement.
On the basis of recent studies, we expect that the following specific motivations can play a role in the non-engagement of residents in local civic initiatives. As civic engagement often results from dissatisfaction with existing situations, such as for example, lacking services (Edelenbos et al., 2018; Howley et al., 2009), we assume that residents are not likely to take action as long as they are satisfied with the status quo. Yet, they may also lack the motivation to engage when they consider it the role and responsibility of public authorities to act (Ubels et al., 2019b). Besides, residents may not engage because they disagree with the project plans or approaches of existing initiatives (Conelly, 2011). Also, residents may have other priorities and be occupied by other activities; such as work or volunteering in local associations, including social care (Cleaver, 2001; Shortall, 2008; Munoz et al., 2014).
Furthermore, Walton and Cohen (2007, 2012) and Gieling et al. (2018) found that the sense of social belonging when going along with positive and enduring social relationships, motivates and enables residents to engage in community focussed activities. Residents who feel socially embedded in their community have more access to information about common wishes and needs, which is found to support community focussed agency (Walton and Cohen, 2007; 2012; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Crona and Bodin, 2006). As social ties in the community are crucial for the joint realization of services, particularly residents who experience a lower level of social belonging may feel unable or unmotivated to engage (Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Shucksmith, 2002; Shortall 2008). Community focussed agency is also influenced by how people feel emotionally connected to their community (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Lewicka, 2011). Besides the senses of social belonging also other factors may be of influence on the level of affection that residents experience towards their community, such as the level of services, travel time to work or the built or natural environment (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Lewicka, 2011). In this study, hence, we take into account that both the feelings of social and affective belonging to the community, separately and in interrelation, may contribute to the motivation not to engage and the lacking ability to do so.
Residents may also lack the ability to engage. On the one hand, lacking individual resources might withhold them to engage, like for example, high age, low education, poor health or low perceived level of skills (Shortall, 2008; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Munoz et al., 2014). Residents may also decide not to engage because they consider other residents within their communities more influential than themselves (Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Crona and Bodin, 2006).
125 Moreover, studies point out that it may be particularly difficult to promote capacity building
because of the complicated relations and patterns of affiliations among subgroups within communities which moreover change over time (Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Fischer and McKee, 2017).
There are also studies which focus at the individual level and, hence, seek to explain why some residents are more prone to engage than others. Among those focusing on the individual level, there are studies which stress the importance of the capacity to engage that residents may or may not have (Shucksmith, 2002; Shortall, 2008; Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Munoz et al., 2014). Others refer to differences in aspirations, ideas, and interests about what is needed and how it should be realized, as well as individual residents’ confidence in their ability to make a difference through their engagement (Crona and Bodin, 2006; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013).
This study departs from an individual angle as well, focusing on the differences between residents and their reasons for non-engagement in civic initiatives that aim to contribute to local liveability. In doing so, we distinguish between specific motivations that residents may have for not engaging and the lacking ability to do so. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to look into the influence of community characteristics on non-engagement, we do try to understand if living in a context of rural depopulation matters for residents reasoning. But before presenting more details about our study design, we discuss how motivations and abilities may play a role in non-engagement.
On the basis of recent studies, we expect that the following specific motivations can play a role in the non-engagement of residents in local civic initiatives. As civic engagement often results from dissatisfaction with existing situations, such as for example, lacking services (Edelenbos et al., 2018; Howley et al., 2009), we assume that residents are not likely to take action as long as they are satisfied with the status quo. Yet, they may also lack the motivation to engage when they consider it the role and responsibility of public authorities to act (Ubels et al., 2019b). Besides, residents may not engage because they disagree with the project plans or approaches of existing initiatives (Conelly, 2011). Also, residents may have other priorities and be occupied by other activities; such as work or volunteering in local associations, including social care (Cleaver, 2001; Shortall, 2008; Munoz et al., 2014).
Furthermore, Walton and Cohen (2007, 2012) and Gieling et al. (2018) found that the sense of social belonging when going along with positive and enduring social relationships, motivates and enables residents to engage in community focussed activities. Residents who feel socially embedded in their community have more access to information about common wishes and needs, which is found to support community focussed agency (Walton and Cohen, 2007; 2012; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Crona and Bodin, 2006). As social ties in the community are crucial for the joint realization of services, particularly residents who experience a lower level of social belonging may feel unable or unmotivated to engage (Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Shucksmith, 2002; Shortall 2008). Community focussed agency is also influenced by how people feel emotionally connected to their community (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Lewicka, 2011). Besides the senses of social belonging also other factors may be of influence on the level of affection that residents experience towards their community, such as the level of services, travel time to work or the built or natural environment (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Lewicka, 2011). In this study, hence, we take into account that both the feelings of social and affective belonging to the community, separately and in interrelation, may contribute to the motivation not to engage and the lacking ability to do so.
Residents may also lack the ability to engage. On the one hand, lacking individual resources might withhold them to engage, like for example, high age, low education, poor health or low perceived level of skills (Shortall, 2008; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Munoz et al., 2014). Residents may also decide not to engage because they consider other residents within their communities more influential than themselves (Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Crona and Bodin, 2006).
124
Moreover, studies point out that it may be particularly difficult to promote capacity building because of the complicated relations and patterns of affiliations among subgroups within communities which moreover change over time (Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Fischer and McKee, 2017).
There are also studies which focus at the individual level and, hence, seek to explain why some residents are more prone to engage than others. Among those focusing on the individual level, there are studies which stress the importance of the capacity to engage that residents may or may not have (Shucksmith, 2002; Shortall, 2008; Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Munoz et al., 2014). Others refer to differences in aspirations, ideas, and interests about what is needed and how it should be realized, as well as individual residents’ confidence in their ability to make a difference through their engagement (Crona and Bodin, 2006; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013).
This study departs from an individual angle as well, focusing on the differences between residents and their reasons for non-engagement in civic initiatives that aim to contribute to local liveability. In doing so, we distinguish between specific motivations that residents may have for not engaging and the lacking ability to do so. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to look into the influence of community characteristics on non-engagement, we do try to understand if living in a context of rural depopulation matters for residents reasoning. But before presenting more details about our study design, we discuss how motivations and abilities may play a role in non-engagement.
On the basis of recent studies, we expect that the following specific motivations can play a role in the non-engagement of residents in local civic initiatives. As civic engagement often results from dissatisfaction with existing situations, such as for example, lacking services (Edelenbos et al., 2018; Howley et al., 2009), we assume that residents are not likely to take action as long as they are satisfied with the status quo. Yet, they may also lack the motivation to engage when they consider it the role and responsibility of public authorities to act (Ubels et al., 2019b). Besides, residents may not engage because they disagree with the project plans or approaches of existing initiatives (Conelly, 2011). Also, residents may have other priorities and be occupied by other activities; such as work or volunteering in local associations, including social care (Cleaver, 2001; Shortall, 2008; Munoz et al., 2014).
Furthermore, Walton and Cohen (2007, 2012) and Gieling et al. (2018) found that the sense of social belonging when going along with positive and enduring social relationships, motivates and enables residents to engage in community focussed activities. Residents who feel socially embedded in their community have more access to information about common wishes and needs, which is found to support community focussed agency (Walton and Cohen, 2007; 2012; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Crona and Bodin, 2006). As social ties in the community are crucial for the joint realization of services, particularly residents who experience a lower level of social belonging may feel unable or unmotivated to engage (Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Shucksmith, 2002; Shortall 2008). Community focussed agency is also influenced by how people feel emotionally connected to their community (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Lewicka, 2011). Besides the senses of social belonging also other factors may be of influence on the level of affection that residents experience towards their community, such as the level of services, travel time to work or the built or natural environment (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Lewicka, 2011). In this study, hence, we take into account that both the feelings of social and affective belonging to the community, separately and in interrelation, may contribute to the motivation not to engage and the lacking ability to do so.
Residents may also lack the ability to engage. On the one hand, lacking individual resources might withhold them to engage, like for example, high age, low education, poor health or low perceived level of skills (Shortall, 2008; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Munoz et al., 2014). Residents may also decide not to engage because they consider other residents within their communities more influential than themselves (Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Crona and Bodin, 2006).
125 Moreover, studies point out that it may be particularly difficult to promote capacity building
because of the complicated relations and patterns of affiliations among subgroups within communities which moreover change over time (Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Fischer and McKee, 2017).
There are also studies which focus at the individual level and, hence, seek to explain why some residents are more prone to engage than others. Among those focusing on the individual level, there are studies which stress the importance of the capacity to engage that residents may or may not have (Shucksmith, 2002; Shortall, 2008; Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Munoz et al., 2014). Others refer to differences in aspirations, ideas, and interests about what is needed and how it should be realized, as well as individual residents’ confidence in their ability to make a difference through their engagement (Crona and Bodin, 2006; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013).
This study departs from an individual angle as well, focusing on the differences between residents and their reasons for non-engagement in civic initiatives that aim to contribute to local liveability. In doing so, we distinguish between specific motivations that residents may have for not engaging and the lacking ability to do so. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to look into the influence of community characteristics on non-engagement, we do try to understand if living in a context of rural depopulation matters for residents reasoning. But before presenting more details about our study design, we discuss how motivations and abilities may play a role in non-engagement.
On the basis of recent studies, we expect that the following specific motivations can play a role in the non-engagement of residents in local civic initiatives. As civic engagement often results from dissatisfaction with existing situations, such as for example, lacking services (Edelenbos et al., 2018; Howley et al., 2009), we assume that residents are not likely to take action as long as they are satisfied with the status quo. Yet, they may also lack the motivation to engage when they consider it the role and responsibility of public authorities to act (Ubels et al., 2019b). Besides, residents may not engage because they disagree with the project plans or approaches of existing initiatives (Conelly, 2011). Also, residents may have other priorities and be occupied by other activities; such as work or volunteering in local associations, including social care (Cleaver, 2001; Shortall, 2008; Munoz et al., 2014).
Furthermore, Walton and Cohen (2007, 2012) and Gieling et al. (2018) found that the sense of social belonging when going along with positive and enduring social relationships, motivates and enables residents to engage in community focussed activities. Residents who feel socially embedded in their community have more access to information about common wishes and needs, which is found to support community focussed agency (Walton and Cohen, 2007; 2012; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Crona and Bodin, 2006). As social ties in the community are crucial for the joint realization of services, particularly residents who experience a lower level of social belonging may feel unable or unmotivated to engage (Skerrat and Hall, 2012; Shucksmith, 2002; Shortall 2008). Community focussed agency is also influenced by how people feel emotionally connected to their community (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Lewicka, 2011). Besides the senses of social belonging also other factors may be of influence on the level of affection that residents experience towards their community, such as the level of services, travel time to work or the built or natural environment (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001; Brennan and Luloff, 2007; Lewicka, 2011). In this study, hence, we take into account that both the feelings of social and affective belonging to the community, separately and in interrelation, may contribute to the motivation not to engage and the lacking ability to do so.
Residents may also lack the ability to engage. On the one hand, lacking individual resources might withhold them to engage, like for example, high age, low education, poor health or low perceived level of skills (Shortall, 2008; Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Munoz et al., 2014). Residents may also decide not to engage because they consider other residents within their communities more influential than themselves (Skerrat and Steiner, 2013; Crona and Bodin, 2006).
126
5.2.1 Conceptual framework
Figure 1. Non-engagement of residents in civic initiatives aiming at contributing to the liveability of their community
To guide our research we present a framework that seeks to explain non-engagement at the individual level. We distinguish between factors that contribute to the lacking motivation to engage and the lacking ability to do so. On the basis of earlier research we expect both to be influenced by sociodemographic characteristics (Munoz et al., 2014; Ruth and Franklin, 2014).
As we expect that living in rural areas with and without depopulation or urban areas may be of impact on the level and reasons of non-engagement, we also take these contextual factors into account. Residence in one of those types of areas, for example, may be of influence on the perceived urgency to maintain or to improve local liveability, or the population structure of such areas may affect the ability to do so and, hence, the confidence to succeed.
In order to explore the motivation of non-engagement (see left column of Figure 1), we take into consideration the following explanations. Firstly, we look into whether and how residents' evaluations of the liveability of their community are of influence. When there is high satisfaction with the liveability we expect less motivation to engage. Instead, we expect low levels of satisfaction with liveability to lead to a higher motivation to engage, because of the perceived need to act. Secondly, we look into residents view on the local government’s responsibility for maintaining liveability. We assume that they are less motivated to engage if they feel that the responsibility to maintain the liveability of their community belongs to the local government. Besides, we expect residents to withhold from engaging if they disagree with the project plan or approaches of existing civic initiatives. Also, we explore if there are other activities that they prioritize, such as, working, caretaking of children and household, other family members or neighbors, or other forms of volunteering. Although we found no evidence for this in recent literature, we also check if residents may not wish to engage without any particular reason. Next to this, we consider if and how their sense of affective belonging to their living environment affect their motivation to engage. When such feelings run low or turn towards detachment or resentment we expect less motivation to engage; instead, when these are positive we expect a higher level of engagement. In the same way, we look into residents' sense of social belonging in their community; this regards, more in particular, the feelings of connectedness to their neighbors as the basis for their agency. This can be considered as a matter of motivation: not willing to commit to neighbors or villagers they feel not connected to. It may be as well a matter of ability: the lack of connections makes them feeling not being accepted and in power to engage.
In order to explore to what extent and how there is lacking ability to engage (see right column of Figure 1), we look into the following factors and relations. Firstly, we determine if and how residents’ expected influence on local civic initiatives kept them from engaging. Secondly, we consider to what extent a lack of confidence in their own capacity plays a role in non-engagement and how this is related to specific personal characteristics, such as age or health.
127 5.2.1 Conceptual framework
Figure 1. Non-engagement of residents in civic initiatives aiming at contributing to the liveability of their community
To guide our research we present a framework that seeks to explain non-engagement at the individual level. We distinguish between factors that contribute to the lacking motivation to engage and the lacking ability to do so. On the basis of earlier research we expect both to be influenced by sociodemographic characteristics (Munoz et al., 2014; Ruth and Franklin, 2014).
As we expect that living in rural areas with and without depopulation or urban areas may be of impact on the level and reasons of non-engagement, we also take these contextual factors into account. Residence in one of those types of areas, for example, may be of influence on the perceived urgency to maintain or to improve local liveability, or the population structure of such areas may affect the ability to do so and, hence, the confidence to succeed.
In order to explore the motivation of non-engagement (see left column of Figure 1), we take into consideration the following explanations. Firstly, we look into whether and how residents' evaluations of the liveability of their community are of influence. When there is high satisfaction with the liveability we expect less motivation to engage. Instead, we expect low levels of satisfaction with liveability to lead to a higher motivation to engage, because of the perceived need to act. Secondly, we look into residents view on the local government’s responsibility for maintaining liveability. We assume that they are less motivated to engage if they feel that the responsibility to maintain the liveability of their community belongs to the local government. Besides, we expect residents to withhold from engaging if they disagree with the project plan or approaches of existing civic initiatives. Also, we explore if there are other activities that they prioritize, such as, working, caretaking of children and household, other family members or neighbors, or other forms of volunteering. Although we found no evidence for this in recent literature, we also check if residents may not wish to engage without any particular reason. Next to this, we consider if and how their sense of affective belonging to their living environment affect their motivation to engage. When such feelings run low or turn towards detachment or resentment we expect less motivation to engage; instead, when these are positive we expect a higher level of engagement. In the same way, we look into residents' sense of social belonging in their community; this regards, more in particular, the feelings of connectedness to their neighbors as the basis for their agency. This can be considered as a matter of motivation: not willing to commit to neighbors or villagers they feel not connected to. It may be as well a matter of ability: the lack of connections makes them feeling not being accepted and in power to engage.
In order to explore to what extent and how there is lacking ability to engage (see right column of Figure 1), we look into the following factors and relations. Firstly, we determine if and how residents’ expected influence on local civic initiatives kept them from engaging. Secondly, we consider to what extent a lack of confidence in their own capacity plays a role in non-engagement and how this is related to specific personal characteristics, such as age or health.
126
5.2.1 Conceptual framework
Figure 1. Non-engagement of residents in civic initiatives aiming at contributing to the liveability of their community
To guide our research we present a framework that seeks to explain non-engagement at the individual level. We distinguish between factors that contribute to the lacking motivation to engage and the lacking ability to do so. On the basis of earlier research we expect both to be influenced by sociodemographic characteristics (Munoz et al., 2014; Ruth and Franklin, 2014).
As we expect that living in rural areas with and without depopulation or urban areas may be of impact on the level and reasons of non-engagement, we also take these contextual factors into account. Residence in one of those types of areas, for example, may be of influence on the perceived urgency to maintain or to improve local liveability, or the population structure of such areas may affect the ability to do so and, hence, the confidence to succeed.
In order to explore the motivation of non-engagement (see left column of Figure 1), we take into consideration the following explanations. Firstly, we look into whether and how residents' evaluations of the liveability of their community are of influence. When there is high satisfaction with the liveability we expect less motivation to engage. Instead, we expect low levels of satisfaction with liveability to lead to a higher motivation to engage, because of the perceived need to act. Secondly, we look into residents view on the local government’s responsibility for maintaining liveability. We assume that they are less motivated to engage if they feel that the responsibility to maintain the liveability of their community belongs to the local government. Besides, we expect residents to withhold from engaging if they disagree with the project plan or approaches of existing civic initiatives. Also, we explore if there are other activities that they prioritize, such as, working, caretaking of children and household, other family members or neighbors, or other forms of volunteering. Although we found no evidence for this in recent literature, we also check if residents may not wish to engage without any particular reason. Next to this, we consider if and how their sense of affective belonging to their living environment affect their motivation to engage. When such feelings run low or turn towards detachment or resentment we expect less motivation to engage; instead, when these are positive we expect a higher level of engagement. In the same way, we look into residents' sense of social belonging in their community; this regards, more in particular, the feelings of connectedness to their neighbors as the basis for their agency. This can be considered as a matter of motivation: not willing to commit to neighbors or villagers they feel not connected to. It may be as well a matter of ability: the lack of connections makes them feeling not being accepted and in power to engage.
In order to explore to what extent and how there is lacking ability to engage (see right column of Figure 1), we look into the following factors and relations. Firstly, we determine if and how residents’ expected influence on local civic initiatives kept them from engaging. Secondly, we consider to what extent a lack of confidence in their own capacity plays a role in non-engagement and how this is related to specific personal characteristics, such as age or health.
127 5.2.1 Conceptual framework
Figure 1. Non-engagement of residents in civic initiatives aiming at contributing to the liveability of their community
To guide our research we present a framework that seeks to explain non-engagement at the individual level. We distinguish between factors that contribute to the lacking motivation to engage and the lacking ability to do so. On the basis of earlier research we expect both to be influenced by sociodemographic characteristics (Munoz et al., 2014; Ruth and Franklin, 2014).
As we expect that living in rural areas with and without depopulation or urban areas may be of impact on the level and reasons of non-engagement, we also take these contextual factors into account. Residence in one of those types of areas, for example, may be of influence on the perceived urgency to maintain or to improve local liveability, or the population structure of such areas may affect the ability to do so and, hence, the confidence to succeed.
In order to explore the motivation of non-engagement (see left column of Figure 1), we take into consideration the following explanations. Firstly, we look into whether and how residents' evaluations of the liveability of their community are of influence. When there is high satisfaction with the liveability we expect less motivation to engage. Instead, we expect low levels of satisfaction with liveability to lead to a higher motivation to engage, because of the perceived need to act. Secondly, we look into residents view on the local government’s responsibility for maintaining liveability. We assume that they are less motivated to engage if they feel that the responsibility to maintain the liveability of their community belongs to the local government. Besides, we expect residents to withhold from engaging if they disagree with the project plan or approaches of existing civic initiatives. Also, we explore if there are other activities that they prioritize, such as, working, caretaking of children and household, other family members or neighbors, or other forms of volunteering. Although we found no evidence for this in recent literature, we also check if residents may not wish to engage without any particular reason. Next to this, we consider if and how their sense of affective belonging to their living environment affect their motivation to engage. When such feelings run low or turn towards detachment or resentment we expect less motivation to engage; instead, when these are positive we expect a higher level of engagement. In the same way, we look into residents' sense of social belonging in their community; this regards, more in particular, the feelings of connectedness to their neighbors as the basis for their agency. This can be considered as a matter of motivation: not willing to commit to neighbors or villagers they feel not connected to. It may be as well a matter of ability: the lack of connections makes them feeling not being accepted and in power to engage.
In order to explore to what extent and how there is lacking ability to engage (see right column of Figure 1), we look into the following factors and relations. Firstly, we determine if and how residents’ expected influence on local civic initiatives kept them from engaging. Secondly, we consider to what extent a lack of confidence in their own capacity plays a role in non-engagement and how this is related to specific personal characteristics, such as age or health.
128
5.3 Methodology 5.3.1 Case selection
The province of Fryslân, with its 194 inhabitants per square kilometer against an average of 502 on the national level, is considered among the most rural areas within the Netherlands (Haartsen et al., 2003; De Vries et al., 2016). It is one of the twelve provinces of the country with a total number of 647268 inhabitants (CBS Statline, 2018). In Dutch statistics, Fryslân is considered as mainly rural and only three of its 27 municipalities are qualified as urban: half of its 419 dwelling places count with less than 500 inhabitants and only 19 with over 5000 (De Vries et al. 2016; Provincie Fryslân,2018). Most of its rural villages actually are facing population decline which is expected to continue for the coming decades (Provincie Fryslân, 2018). Although according to OECD definitions Fryslân would be qualified as an intermediate rural area, we selected this province as our case because of its rurality in reigning Dutch perceptions (Steenbekkers et al., 2008), the liveability challenges of its smaller villages (see section 1) and the regional policy in which citizen engagement in contributing to liveability issues is encouraged (Provincie Fryslân, 2018).
5.3.2 Data collection
We used a quantitative approach in order to explore the extent of recent non-engagement of Frisian residents in civic initiatives that aim at improving the liveability of their community and the stated lacking intention to do so in the future. Our data was collected via several online surveys by the Frisian Institute for Social Research (FSP) among their Frisian citizen panel. This allowed us to look into non-engagement in general, but also among specific social groups and at the level of different types of areas (see section 3.3). According to Visser and Ferrnee (2017), the Frisian citizen panel consists of a group of Frisian residents of 18 years and older who share their experiences and opinions on topical issues. It has been composed by inviting 40.000 residents from all Frisian municipalities. This resulted in the participation in the panel of around 3750 respondents on the base of random sampling. As explained in section 1, we look into the particular group of mid-aged and elderly residents. To explore why residents within this age range do not engage, we used data of three FSP surveys that were carried out in spring of 2017 (response of 2248 residents), spring 2018 (response 1790) and autumn 2018 (response 1755). We were able
to combine data from the three surveys, because of the unique ID of the respondents. This resulted in 1274 respondents of who 1185 were 45 years or older and were selected for this study.
All respondents responded to the survey questions and statements (see List of indicators, Table 1) regardless if they had recently engaged or not. In addition, only those who did not engage could indicate their reasons for their non-engagement. They could choose among given reasons as well as elaborate on other reasons in an open response category. This provided no new explanations.
5.3.3 Data analysis
We distinguished two types of rural areas (communities <5000 inhabitants): the rural areas which are officially identified as areas where depopulation is ongoing or anticipated , indicated here as ‘Rural depopulation’, and the rural areas without such nomination under the heading of ‘Rural other’. Larger communities (> 5000 inhabitants) we labeled as ‘Urban'.
Firstly, we analyzed the extent of recent non-engagement. Secondly, we compared between groups which recently did and did not engage in such initiatives and checked if residence in any of the three types of areas made a difference in the likelihood of civic engagement. We then compared how the respondents explained their non-engagement and checked again if the type of area where they lived mattered. In the next step of our analysis, we focused on the extent that recent ‘non-engagers’ had no intention to engage in the future. In addition, we conducted logistic regression analyses at the level of each type of area in order to explore what explained why respondents had no intention to engage in the future. Before doing so, we carried out a multicollinearity check by means of Pearson correlation tests for all recent ‘non-engagers’, in order to see whether explanatory variables (partially) correlated and, as such, would reduce the reliability of our regression models. We found that this was the case for the variables Income and Duration of residence. ‘Higher income’ correlated both with the dependent variable Not intending to engage in the future (p<0.01, 0.189) and with the independent variables Higher education (p<0.01, 0.407) and Employment (p<0.01, 0.246).
129 5.3 Methodology
5.3.1 Case selection
The province of Fryslân, with its 194 inhabitants per square kilometer against an average of 502 on the national level, is considered among the most rural areas within the Netherlands (Haartsen et al., 2003; De Vries et al., 2016). It is one of the twelve provinces of the country with a total number of 647268 inhabitants (CBS Statline, 2018). In Dutch statistics, Fryslân is considered as mainly rural and only three of its 27 municipalities are qualified as urban: half of its 419 dwelling places count with less than 500 inhabitants and only 19 with over 5000 (De Vries et al. 2016; Provincie Fryslân,2018). Most of its rural villages actually are facing population decline which is expected to continue for the coming decades (Provincie Fryslân, 2018). Although according to OECD definitions Fryslân would be qualified as an intermediate rural area, we selected this province as our case because of its rurality in reigning Dutch perceptions (Steenbekkers et al., 2008), the liveability challenges of its smaller villages (see section 1) and the regional policy in which citizen engagement in contributing to liveability issues is encouraged (Provincie Fryslân, 2018).
5.3.2 Data collection
We used a quantitative approach in order to explore the extent of recent non-engagement of Frisian residents in civic initiatives that aim at improving the liveability of their community and the stated lacking intention to do so in the future. Our data was collected via several online surveys by the Frisian Institute for Social Research (FSP) among their Frisian citizen panel. This allowed us to look into non-engagement in general, but also among specific social groups and at the level of different types of areas (see section 3.3). According to Visser and Ferrnee (2017), the Frisian citizen panel consists of a group of Frisian residents of 18 years and older who share their experiences and opinions on topical issues. It has been composed by inviting 40.000 residents from all Frisian municipalities. This resulted in the participation in the panel of around 3750 respondents on the base of random sampling. As explained in section 1, we look into the particular group of mid-aged and elderly residents. To explore why residents within this age range do not engage, we used data of three FSP surveys that were carried out in spring of 2017 (response of 2248 residents), spring 2018 (response 1790) and autumn 2018 (response 1755). We were able
to combine data from the three surveys, because of the unique ID of the respondents. This resulted in 1274 respondents of who 1185 were 45 years or older and were selected for this study.
All respondents responded to the survey questions and statements (see List of indicators, Table 1) regardless if they had recently engaged or not. In addition, only those who did not engage could indicate their reasons for their non-engagement. They could choose among given reasons as well as elaborate on other reasons in an open response category. This provided no new explanations.
5.3.3 Data analysis
We distinguished two types of rural areas (communities <5000 inhabitants): the rural areas which are officially identified as areas where depopulation is ongoing or anticipated , indicated here as ‘Rural depopulation’, and the rural areas without such nomination under the heading of ‘Rural other’. Larger communities (> 5000 inhabitants) we labeled as ‘Urban'.
Firstly, we analyzed the extent of recent non-engagement. Secondly, we compared between groups which recently did and did not engage in such initiatives and checked if residence in any of the three types of areas made a difference in the likelihood of civic engagement. We then compared how the respondents explained their non-engagement and checked again if the type of area where they lived mattered. In the next step of our analysis, we focused on the extent that recent ‘non-engagers’ had no intention to engage in the future. In addition, we conducted logistic regression analyses at the level of each type of area in order to explore what explained why respondents had no intention to engage in the future. Before doing so, we carried out a multicollinearity check by means of Pearson correlation tests for all recent ‘non-engagers’, in order to see whether explanatory variables (partially) correlated and, as such, would reduce the reliability of our regression models. We found that this was the case for the variables Income and Duration of residence. ‘Higher income’ correlated both with the dependent variable Not intending to engage in the future (p<0.01, 0.189) and with the independent variables Higher education (p<0.01, 0.407) and Employment (p<0.01, 0.246).
